The Strongest Defense

I was rather intrigued after watching a lengthy film which pushed for the view that the Russian Armed Forces are more united and supremely more skilled than the average U.S.Army Solider. The argument falls on largely the basis that in Russia, the environment and and surroundings equate and add to an upping of the general skill and readiness of the common soldier; a fact that it does not apply to the American defenders of liberty. After some further research however, I came up with my own analysis, albeit with a starkly different conclusion.

According to international statistics, the Russian area is defended by roughly 23 million active soldiers, far more than the present number of American troops. While this number is considerable, it comes hugely from the process of conscription that occurs within Russia's borders, forcing many young men into involuntary service during their careers.

Further, the reports explain that while most of Russia's volunteer forces are considered quite effective and united,  its larger units of enlisted conscripts often reveal great percentages of AWOL troops, soldiers who are on the run from their posts of duty. So despite the massive number of troops available, the Soviet bloc has yet to discover methods to keep those numbers in line, showing a clear weakness in their structure.

Additionally, Russian troops receive among some of the lowest pay and benefits of any major nation of the world, perhaps explaining partially why the numbers of deserters are so high.



Notwithstanding these elements, the major reason as the data shows is that Russia forces so many young men to join the armed forces, likely against their will. As America saw during the War in Vietnam, drafted soldiers had a tendency to preform poorly, commit atrocities, and return home to bash the military operations preformed abroad. Because America allows for choice, its members cannot claim that they do not wish to be involved in a war and have been forced against their own will. Politics rarely divide uniformed members, and the focus remains upon completing the mission, not serving oneself. If Russia were to take this reality to heart, moving for full implementation within its military assembly, the numbers of its soldiers would fall considerably, yet their power would be more directed and useful.

The 21st Century is one in which human rights--and will, must be respected. Forcing a person to don a uniform and obey an institution which they hate does not foster good performance or hard work; it encourages weaker actions and less confidence in the military. America has learned this, yet Russia still must understand it for future success.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Means to Justify Ends: Assange's Folly

"If men of this century understood the value of common ground, they might forge heroic legacies rather than dastardly remembrances during their time on this good earth."

Years ago, as the young men of America donned uniforms and departed for the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima, they were backed by those of diverse colors, both in political beliefs and backgrounds. From the poor farm boy to some of the most elite congressmen, hundreds of thousands of troops bid farewell, encouraged by spectators in full support--and opposition, to the great war of the century. Even among the most pacifist of journalists there remained an understanding that shoddy or  not supportive reporting might cause irreparable danger to the mission, and to the lives of soldiers serving in the front. One might look to it as a universal mentality; that war was painful, yet its burdens and sacrifices had to be carried and made together.

Today, the world seems to have forgotten these olden concessions of passion. WikiLeaks, a website pledging transparency and openness, has unleashed a remarkable number of documents regarding details of the Middle Eastern wars, placing thousands of lives across the world in immediate jeopardy. According to the site's founder, Julian Assange, the documents represent the uncovering of crimes against humanity by governments involved in the conflict, yet he fails to understand the depth of the issue at stake. For men like Assange, life is all about the one moment of success and limelight--not the aftereffects on innocent lives. Like Phillip Agee, who released confidential information that led to the assassinations of countless undercover agents, Assange believes the means justifier the ends. Secrets spilled are all that matter--even if their consequences are earth-shattering.

But furthermore Assange's action highlight a sad reality of a world in which views and ideological stances have overpowered common sense and general worldwide unity. In the past years in America, it might be prudent to realize how far and widespread this condition is. Democrats did not simply disagree with President Bush; they truly wanted his administration to collapse and fail, with international courts indicting each member possible with war crimes and humiliating the country of which all parties share. Under Barack Obama's tenure, the dialog has hardly changed, with his detractors picking at anything possible to call for impeachment or eventual failure.

All else aside, it paints a sad yet enlightened picture of what the world has become, and what it will likely be forever: an arena where only the strong, regardless of their motives, shall continue to outlive and outperform those around them. Of course competition is not wrong, but if its ends are such travesties--as Mr. Assange's will cost countless lives, the final ultimatum is one in which morality has been murdered in cold blood.

Those brave men and women currently serving are the last hope of the world to overcome evil and defeat the ill-doers residing within it, yet they will only be capable of succeeding if their positions and defenses are not compromised for the sake of ideological reveling or projection into the spotlight. For too long in the past 50 years this has become the operating procedure of so many, and its results are to gruesome and countless to recount in full. Unless the world--people of different views and ideologies alike, are able to overcome this incessant desire to betray the good cause for the sake of personal fame, we will spiral into a degenerated pit of nothingness in which morality is gone.    


Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman

Finish the Job!

Only days ago, North Korea launched a decisive and unprovoked strike on an island near South Korea, killing four and initiating what some view as a deadly foreshadowing of greater conflict. The communist country, led by the ailing Kim Jong-il, seems to be making one last appeal to demonstrate its might before the dictator passes on and leaves his younger son to govern and rule the policy of the economically broken country. Due to the unique situation with the unwarranted attack on South Korea and the oncoming transfer of power, a possibility is visible for President Barack Obama to show courage and intervene to finish what might have been accomplished with a more aggressive push following the Tet Offensive of the 1960s.

In the past, North Korea proved to be a massive threat because of its ability to generate and launch nuclear weapons without much regulation from mainland China or Russia. But today, with the rash attack by the communist defense council, even the war-abstaining United Nations would be forced to agree to the use of force, and America could be seen as assisting a major ally, and far cry from the uncertainty and quagmire of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.

A UN coalition backed by troops of the U.S. Military and British Royal Armed Forces would be able to stake out ground in the northern province, forcing Kim Jong-il to reconsider his use of armaments or suffer the international fallout of refusal. Combined with South Korean Defense soldiers and Japanese aide, the joint assault could bring about a culmination of defeat for the communist regime, reducing its iron grasp on the country to little more than a light touch. The only major obstacle to be considered is mainland China, yet with America's close connections in the free trade network, its is unlikely that the larger country would look towards denying its economic ally the freedom to change a nearby nation.

The benefits of swift action towards North Korea are many and diverse. By eliminating a major nuclear threat,  the allied forces would be able to alleviate tensions in the zone, weakening Russian and Chinese influence and encouraging a deescalation of communism in the countries of Vietnam and Burma, resulting in a dramatic realignment of the world and its major players in both economic and militaristic affairs. Providing such nations chose to adapt a more pro-trade stance after their shrugging off of the communist fist, they would become invaluable partners for the United States, helping to alleviate the nation's closeness to China for manufacturing purposes.

America does not enjoy the ability any longer to simply sit and watch as countries continue to exercise their brutal and totalitarian regimes upon innocent civilians. In accordance with basic morals, these nations must be brought to case and forced to change their views--or face the consequences. Rampant extermination of freedom and its principles has only negativity to offer, a slow and destructive path to inadequacy which will inevitably damage the world's liberated populations.

Time is running out, and Barack Obama must have the courage to act--or to step aside and let others do so for him.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Encouraging Good Stewardship

There has been an arguable amount of discussion of the merits of environmental activism over the past few years, yet the debate seems to often obscure the necessary facts of the equation. No matter where a voter stands ideologically, they should possess at least a base respect for the world in which they live, and an ethic to work in the best interests of the planet's health. As members of the National Alliance Foundation, we firmly adhere to the belief that the earth, precious and self-sufficient as it may be now, will not always remain so, and thus needs to be treasured and protected.

If the preceding seemed like a confession of tree-hugging, as environmentalism is too often maligned, then let the light be shown more brightly into the problem. While perhaps Go Green movement is populated by a number of less-than-sincere individuals simply enjoying the prospect of activism, at its core are a group of concerned citizens who desire fundamental and stable reform in the view of the government in relation to environmental policy.

Bashing the corporations however, is not the best route to take. Such an option might endure for a brief spell, but eventually the backlash only turns people against the idea of properly stewarding their own piece of the earth, something to be avoided at all costs. A real solution is to start teaching environmental mentality in the school systems, and embracing it across the governmental plain. Not in any way should the move be partisan or along the lines of former Vice President Al Gore's fraudulent research, but some basic caps might not be seen as extreme.

Through the implementation of a long-term security capping, Congress would allow companies the freedom to produce excessively, building inventory, and then enter into a slower spell of less production, during which those additional items might be sold instead. For making such a sacrifice, the government would deliver tax cuts to the corporations involved, thus benefiting both sides of the transaction fairly.

On the other side, attempting to ram a massive federal regulations package down the throats of the companies is only asking for trouble, as the voters will likely side with the companies, quickly landsliding the bill's proponents at the next election.

Climate change is not without its skeptics; indeed, plenty exist who deny its viability as an issue, yet the most simple facts must be kept in mind. If carbon continues to vanish from the atmosphere, our planet could very well face a crisis of resources and secure water levels. So there is nothing shameful about showing a little heart, regardless if it makes one look a slight shade of green. Unlike most policies, environmental decisions lead to conditions which are impossible to repeal through legislation. Therefore America must decide whether it will make those conditions good--or disastrous.


Alicia Tapely

National Alliance Vice President for Environmental Affairs

2012: Avoiding a Third Party

In spite of the defeats of nearly 61 incumbent Democrats only weeks ago, Axelrod, Plouffe, and Obama are all salivating at their prospects for 2012, and with good reason. This year's election campaign may have been a hit for the presidency, but it showed true the ability of the third party advocates to make--or break, candidates. In California, Chelene Nightingale cost Meg Whitman considerable support, and Libertarians across the map drew enough votes to successfully, albeit narrowly, reelect many vulnerable Democrats. Our democracy fully supports active participation, but in the best interests of the people, both the Libertarians and Constitutional members will abstain from big shot campaigning in 2012, which has the pretentiousness to turn into a close race.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama has been slapped across the face; but sometimes the undecided maiden can be wooed to the injured one's side. As long as the Whitehouse can spin a convincing message that the president is being bullied by John Boehner and the Tea Party, his reelection prospects will still remain in healthy territory. So little as a bump in the economic levels could be equally endearing, and the raucous yammering of the Right about taxes is unlikely to carry through unless it can be solidified into firm pro-business message. Congress may have been won through the tactic, but no Republican, one-on-one with the president can simply hope to win  by that singular view, so precautions need to be adapted.

As if the color isn't more visible, this means blocking all those who might attempt to launch a third-party run; figures including Mike Bloomberg, Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, or even the mentally undecided Alex Jones. Bloomberg is the largest danger because he holds a unique position of visibility, decent fiscal stewardship credentials, and a boatload of money to run with. He may also draw enough independents away from both parties to let the larger Democratic base win the night.

Paul, who is still basking in his son's recent glory in the state of Kentucky, has the potential to stand up and deliver the GOP defeat which all the Washington crowd desires. His rhetoric, often suspicious and borderline anti-Semetic, could splinter the party--at least in the media's view, and bring about a crippling downturn of hopes against the president. He leads a joint coalition with Jesse Ventura, whose 9/11 inside job claims might attract enough fringe support to hurt the GOP. More importantly, his celebrity status will attract more backing,  taking votes away from Obama's strongest opponent.

Jones...well, suffice to say we do not need more intellectually robbed individuals seeking the presidential office.

Like it or not, the Tea Party has to face the facts: Barack Obama will be re-inaugurated on January 20th, 2013 if its members continue to request ideological purity. Whoever holds the GOP banner in 2012 must be capable of appealing to the entire nation, not one small pocket of beliefs. And while conservatives outnumber liberals by a long shot, the extent which some of these candidates force their views are enough to push even the most disgruntled independents and moderates back to voting for our current commander in chief.  


Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

End the Seizure of Profits

We like to discuss America as our "land of opportunity," yet far too often that title is stripped away by the juggernaut-like force of the federal government through its means of extorting money from the people. Across the board, people are taxed unfairly, businesses jarred into closure status, and the hope of success is annihilated. Disregarding all these things, the government steps in further to regulate the one independent means of personal success: the stock market. Investors who work hard studying the markets, making the calculations, and placing their money on the line are taxed voluminously for their returns--if any.

Over the years, capital gains taxes have grown to be a significant issue, but the government still seems to relish their net result of each investor's efforts, with tax rates now preparing to soar to a whopping 20% in January. Let's go ahead and examine that prospect for a second: if an investor rakes in a 200% gain, highly likely with the present downturn's eventual recovery, the government moves in. Supposing the stock moves from $3.00 to $9.00 and the investor holds forty shares, his total gain should, honestly speaking, be six on each, and thus $240. But with the government's encroachment, the man who risked his time and money, studying the market before making a final decision, will only receive $192 for his efforts--hardly fair compensation.

Therefore the government should move to cut such outrageous applications of penalties for average people who have found success in the United States in order to foster a view held by the country's founder's and in line with equalized capitalism.

Two arguments tend to prevail during the capital gains tax debate. The first, promoted by those who decry capitalism or have experienced its failures, insists that is is unfair for some to take in such money since not everyone is capable of doing so, and that only the elite dominate the trading market. While the latter may be true, the definition of "elite" should first be considered. Is an American who puts their time and efforts into research and study of the markets truly an elitist, or simply a common person looking for success? Besides the requirement of starting funds, their are hardly any barriers to joining the investment bandwagon, and countless individuals have become successful starting independent of a major firm or company.

Basing their views off of the poor economic state of the present, the other side complains that eliminating the taxes now will only serve to damage the economic situation which we as a nation are in by depriving the government of additional tax revenue. This logic might hold clear, yet one asks why presidents during strong economic times still manage to avoid doing away with the unnecessary rates of taxation. The answer is simple and mind-raking: they do not have to. Surges of cash with the millions of dollars made each day in the markets are enough to make politicians drool with excitement, as such revenue funds their massive projects of wasteful spending on a regular schedule.

If America is to remain a land where opportunity may be found, than its systems of taxation should reflect this. A nation were one's success is regulated is a country where freedom is ever close to extinction.


John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

Humility's Sabbatical

As much as he would probably hate to admit it, Barack Obama could learn a thing or two about public relations from none other than his love-to-hate predecessor, George W. Bush. Through all of his mistakes, gaffes, and embarrassments, the former president demonstrated a considerable calm demeanor, shrugging the dust off and in a way, staying above the chaos of partisanship. With dangerously fluctuating approval ratings and a soured market which shows little interest in recovery, the current president runs the risk of defeat if he maintains the appearance of elitist ignorance towards the problems facing average Americans.

Pundits dating back to the early stages of the 2008 campaign lavished then Senator Obama with the shining "New Clinton" title, hoping to pull off a dramatic 1992 repetition defeat of the GOP establishment with a massive conservative/moderate coalition in the Democratic camp. For all intents in purposes, the candidate's speeches, which went from buoyantly liberal in 2007 to remarkably right of center in Fall 2008, carried that message home, sending keeping John McCain in Arizona with a modest enough 53% of the national popular vote. To the media, it was over, with the new charismatic democrat in power and a flimsy Republican ramshackle to stand against him. Except...there was a unique difference.

Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama was no poor Southern boy with a small town charisma to sweep the nation; his career was built on community organizing, particularly with a strong black constituency base in northern Illinois, as well as considerable union money. Obama had never stood against the tide in a state with unfriendly colors; reaching the senate with a jaw dropping 70% of the total vote--and against a carpet bagger radical too. He may have gone to Harvard Law School, but his parents' achievement of PhD's hardly gives him much credit for his knowledge, which was passed on by his considerably intelligent father, Barack Obama Sr. Clinton's own paternal figure, a drunkard and violent man, offered little to help his son graduate Georgetown, Oxford, and then Yale Law School.

So when Barack Obama railed about "no tax increases," and "a strong small business economy," he bought the hearts of the people long enough to win election--and now that energy is vanishing. In the face of crisis, the president appears as if he must be reminded of the plight of the people, evidences in his haughty and long-delayed assumption of responsibility for the disaster cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico.

It is not to say that he has not been speaking out; only that his words are lost to the masses who desire straight talk and a charismatic interpersonal honesty--both elements of the Bush and Clinton style. To the average American his speeches are adept for sure, but they lack the genuine acceptance of everyone to resonate with the majority of the public. Even within his own writings, the president is remarkably syrupy with his words, weaving every sentence into idealistic matrimony between verbs and paragraph breaks that seem anxious to prove the worth of his terrific education--and still come off as out of touch with the common man. If the commander in chief were to alter his rhetoric, tossing in a gaffe or two in balance with his theatrical command of English, he might manage to dissuade a public which now more than ever appears intent on throwing him out of office in 2012.

Contrary to what the president might have viewed it as in the days leading up to his election, the Oval Office is not, and will never be, an office meant for the most elite. The Senate, filled with millionaires and the most skilled at the political game is the place for those persons in political society. Though once in a while they may reach its hallowed frame, their ultimatum will approach soon if they fail to shake the heavy dust of self-appreciation from their suits and move forward for the people. Barack Obama now has 2 years to make this change--or perhaps he will be changing residency.


Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations

Solving the Crisis in Catholicism

(Editor's note: Although Tom Garrow is a good friend of the National Alliance Foundation's leadership team, his views are not necessarily those of the entire organization).


Morality and sensibility are both elements which the world seems to be ever so frequently robbed of, and thus religious institutions must often serve as a counselors and guides to restore much of the world unto a righteous track that seeks to espouse these two virtuous parts in the formation of generational stability. Generally speaking, the Roman Catholic Church has done a fine job of this responsibility over the past centuries, yet I am forced to take up the dreaded mantle of the justice observer a point out the area in which the religious tent has failed--both utterly and needlessly: lifetime celibacy for its priests.

It must be made evident that I am a Catholic, proud and of strong faith, yet I refuse to continue to endorse a binding rule which has proven to have devastating effects not only on the basic welfare of Catholic spiritual leaders, but also on the psychological development of countless children. Perhaps not all offending religious figureheads are from my church, nor are all crimes involving the molestation of children exclusive to the parishes, but the vast majority are, and for an almost entirely explainable reason: like ever other human, Catholic priests are fallen creatures; saved by a loving God yet never capable of attaining perfection--unless they are in Heaven itself.


Not only is celibacy strictly against the teachings of the Bible; its tenets suggest a scenario which realistically none of us can hope to achieve: perfected spiritual leaders. For precisely this reason, Jesus Christ, the only flawless man to walk the earth, was sent to atone for the world's sins, so that all those born into the world a presently living at the time of his sacrifice would be saved from an eternity in oblivion. In plainer terms, priests are not free of sin because of their occupation, yet at the same time, they were never intended to be! Just like leaders in any other faith, priests are meant to serve as guiding clerics, not holier than thou personages.

From the most liberal to the most zealously conservative Catholics, their is a long running commitment to the family, and as such families adhering to the faith look to prime examples of strong and faithful relationships in life. Keeping with this line of belief, why should our priests not be permitted to have mature sexual relationships, become married, and beyond this, have children, if all of these might serve as a beacon and image of success for a congregation of families? It might be added that the Bible makes no discrimination with the following verses. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."--Genesis 2:24. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral."--Hebrews 13:4. Even more explicitly, Proverbs 5:18-19 notes that "May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.  A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love." Passages like "honored by all," and "your fountain," hardly can be proven to refer to only those beneath the Church's leadership, neither in their independent form or in the full chapter context. 


The attempts within the media to demonize priests may draw some appreciation, but the core of its argument remains ignorant of a valid fact of debate: the very cause of the inhuman crimes targeting children. Some of the most open-minded people would look at a 5-10 year period of celibacy for priests in the seminary or recently graduated as reasonable, though the expectation that these men live their entire lives without the natural satisfaction of intimate relationships is wholly unrealistic. Priests are not compensated marvelously in worldly manner, so they must rely on God's work alone as the greatest payment--an evident difficulty while living life in "single" status.


That's not to condone any of the horrific and unjustifiable actions by priests against altar boys around the world, yet the initial beginning of the heinous sin should be acknowledged, both by the lowest of spiritual leaders and the most elite, including the Pope. Living a life of both little material reward and physical separation is enough to drive an average person mad, and most priests are not immune to such crippling realities. I regret the bluntness of this, but if many of the clerical heads in the Church were permitted to "get it on" with members of the opposite sex as everyone else is, my belief is that the rates of abuse would drop noticeably over shorter, and longer periods of time. 


Not one of us, from the lowly beggar to the Pope himself, can claim perfection or even a state that fulfills a small minority of its requirements; in other terms, we are a fallen and weak race. But it is for this reason, that God, in all his shining perfection, chose to send a miraculous Savior, steering us away from an inevitable and painful death through His indescribably wonderful mercy. As part of that decision, He allowed us all to live normal and balanced lives--essences of life which would bring glory to His kingdom and to the earth. In the creation of future priests, the purpose was to raise up messengers of God on the earth. However just like those priests are equal to all those whom they guide, they are entitled to the same permissible pursuits and actions of average spiritually faithful individuals. 




Tom Garrow


Adjunct Writer--Of Faith and Life Blog

Fulfilling the Democratic Mission

In an age of streaming rhetoric, it is common for elected officials to attempt to claim some sort of moral high ground on the issues of democracy and human rights. Few can hardly begin to forget the winning ticket of 2008, which was led by two politicians pledging to the take military action in Darfur, which thus far has not come close to fruition. But while Africa maybe the one most frequently reported bodies of land in conflict, there are countless around the world which continue to undergo such difficulties with freedom, and still are overlooked by even the most stalwart of American politicians.

Most evident is the country of Burma, and more pointedly, Aung San Suu Kyi's extended house arrest while the world stands by preaching values which they have not acted upon. Kyi, the all but official prime minister-elect of the nation, has been waiting for more than 14 years for her release; yet now it appears she may in actuality be detained for even longer. While Burma remains under the imperialistic army junta rule, it can hardly be called an imposing country, and one wonders why no members of the United Nations have chosen to deploy security forces to remove and replace the present government.

Beyond its outset, the situation in Burma grouped with those around the world reveal a sad pattern of inaction on democratic values and principles, which seem largely based off of the costs of pursuing such policies. The ill-fated War in Iraq might be viewed in such a way, despite its overall success in reducing human rights violations in the Middle East. Politicians become too concerned with the home front, neglecting to foster freedom and new allies in countries were the seeds of democracy are just waiting to grow, if with some international encouragement. A small detachment of troops would be enough, together with the UN's label, to alter the course of history in so many places were they given the authority to actively combat and eliminate threats to individual and societal free enterprise.

The card may be played that in the current financial crisis, such actions are imprudent, but a disagreement must be had. When the United States won a hard fought victory over Japan in th 1940s, a new pro-business country was established, leading to the dramatic benefit of free market upswing which was witnessed later in the 20th Century. In the same way, elected leaders must look at the countries not as financial burdens, but as tickets to market power. Loosening the hold of fascism over Burma would allow the nation's companies to expand and grow, defeating unemployment and giving the West another lucrative trading partner to do business with.

However, more important is that this attempt would free people and  remain in the basking grace of the best interests of human and civil rights. For one who had been awarded the grandeur of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama should realize this better than most. Standing by when action may and should be taken is not a sign of intelligence, but of weakness. Of course leaders like Kyi may eventually be released, yet their potential during that time of imprisonment is worth noting. How might this brave woman, who has endured so much, have managed to help the world had the administrations of George H.W. Bush and William J. Clinton been more anxious to spread human rights and universal freedom? The facts suggest quite a great deal.

Costs are always keen facts that must be dealt with, yet they should never override duty. If Winston Churchill had worried about the monetary loss of World War II, the world might today be a unified German state. Leadership and true creation of good history is seizing up the moment and taking a chance, always with the best intentions in mind.

No one can begin to predict how democracy will affect areas like Burma and Darfur, but the sooner that they are allowed to experience the wonderful gift, the sooner we can reap the largely positive results of its presence.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Notes on the Border: A Hawkish Opinion

Capping it off at 12 million, living in the United States of America, illegally. For anyone who fails to be shocked enough, those numbers are from the year 2004. So honestly, the question has to be, has the nation had enough? Sure companies ship jobs overseas, but allowing more undocumented workers to come into the country doesn't solve that problem, even if they are deputized as American citizens. In reality, what we really need to do is stop selling governmental control to the Mexican border conflict and start where the real problem is: freedom of passage.

I've spoken at lengths beforehand about my blatant disagreement with President Obama's reckless decision to amend border security laws in a such a manner that cuts off general funding for the ever so necessary fence to protect American citizens, and in this piece my view is no different. Regardless of George Bush's election in the swing year of the change in centuries, it still took almost 60% of a decade for his party to address immigration reform, resulting in the slow start of a process to complete the line of defense against those disrespectful of the laws.

In the 21st Century however, we have to take a different approach. No longer are new immigrants simply pursuing the American Dream, as they might have years ago. With many states offering healthcare and social benefits as lucrative welcome presents, illegally entering immigrants now have more incentive than ever to break the rule of justice and decency in our good nation. Critics of my viewpoints often argue that these people just want new opportunity like my own ancestors who arrived in the States, yet they miss the huge elephant in the room that summarizes neatly their logic: the availability of government benefits. Perhaps there was less of a downside to immigrants arriving illegally generations past, as they could not waltz up and claim food stamps or unemployment--all while not paying taxes. And in the social democratic mindset of today, our nation must care for, first and foremost, all of its citizens.

For these reasons I can see no better policy than a hardened mentality which seeks to deport all discovered illegals for their crimes. Much like in the country of Italy, we should hold little regrets about doing what is right in the best interests of American citizens of all races and creed.

Of course these decisions may divide families, yet people must come to terms with their own actions in life. America is a melting pot; not a swine's trough, and her riches must be protected at all costs. To those who feel that tough immigration policy is discriminatory towards Hispanics, view this link, which explains how Latinos have become regular targets of crime from illegal immigrant hands.

People have the right to be angry that families are broken up, or that the legal immigration process takes so long, yet this does not justify their actions against international and American law. The end should certainly not justify the means, and the insistence by modern political scientists to apply the reverse of such a tenet to immigration policy is irrefutable evidence of confused logic over the issue.

Indeed we must stand together, and in the defense of something greater than ourselves.


Gene Schilling

Writer--Our America Blog

Notes on the Border: A Liberal's View

(Please note: this piece is part of a two section opinion series on America's solution to illegal immigration. Neither article forcibly represents the views of the National Alliance Foundation)

In the age of the Tea Party and the conservative revolution which it embodies, it's sometimes easy for us to be swept up in the moment, forgetting the hard facts and truths about where we as a nation have come from, and were we may go if we do so in a united fashion. To be clear, I'm not a Republican by a long shot; I dislike the policies that too often fringe on pro-corporatism and outsourcing of American jobs, which can be tied directly to the immigration issue, as will soon be covered. Instead, my registration is Democratic, and I favor a more realistic approach to immigration, and indeed one which I think even my red state friends can come to agree with me about.

Spend even a few hours with a family of South or Central American descent, and almost universally they display and incredibly noticeable pro-familial attitude towards life, which, strange as it may be, is very conservative! Many Latinos own the small businesses of our nation, harvest the produce for our organic markets, and provide wonderful environments for growth even for other Americans under lesser circumstances. Even in the poorest of conditions, Hispanic families cherish a warm and united feeling between their members, inspiring those around them and in the case of the small business owners, creating jobs.

This is why I cannot abide to the GOP's near insistence on not only alienating, but going so far as to demonize the immigrant community for being as they will. Of course assimilation is necessary, but does anyone really want to chase away the pro-family attitude of the majority of these immigrants? Considering the mounting divorce rates spreading across the land like a plague, how is it hurtful to to bring in a culture which predominantly is advocating monogamy in marriages and a close knit, conservative way of life?

Whenever he border security issue comes up, my good Republican friends are always ready to pounce, delivering a blistering tirade against the problem of the open border, and thus sidelining the countless Hispanic immigrants who have made the lives of others better in this country through their courageous openings of businesses and shops. And regardless of the hard right conservative mementos of the Spanish language as some festering virus, most second generation immigrants speak near flawless English while their parents may pass on still communicating in their motherland tongue. If this seems untrue, then I urge my conservative detractors to listen to a speech by their newly enthroned bastion of Reaganism, Senator-elect Marco Rubio of Florida, whose parents were Cuban immigrants, yet he today speaks flawless English.

Solving our issues with the border is by no means about trying to marginalize and cut off one source of new American citizens in the form of the Hispanic community. Looser legal immigration restrictions, more protectionist job opportunities, and further investments in math and sciences are what will help us build a more united future as a true melting pot culture. This image does not need to be scapegoated habitually by the GOP, nor by the more traditionalist Democrats. As Americans we are not exclusive to one race or one party, but instead to a legacy of pride and honor as the last hope for freedom and enterprise in the world.

Let's work together; not apart.


Rick Mendoza

Adjunct Writer--Latino Coalition Blog

How to Fix the Budget Deficit

Even the most optimistic observers have to admit that America's present budget deficit is both an unsustainable and irresponsible creation of governments unwatched and unregulated by voters in the past 30 years. With national debt at a staggering $13.4 trillion, even the least engaged should wonder at just how further generations are expected to deal with the overwhelming challenge of negative intake versus spending for the depleted coffers of Washington.

Raising taxes is always a possibility, but one that hardly guarantees real change. Essentially Congress would need to raise income tax rates to 15% at the minimum, driving families into further destitution while failing to fully secure a change in revenue. And of course there is no mandate forcing Congress to use those taxes for the budget deficit; they might easily add it to their own means of extorting earmarks or championing district spending projects.

No, while taxes are an option, they aren't the first factor of the equation which we must consider. The real solution to America's troubling financial instability is the dramatic cutting of spending, across the board, to foster a steadily decreasing budget issue. Most figures show that the HHS Department and Social Security make up a massive majority of the total spending in America, trailed only slightly by the Department of Defense. These programs all promise good intentions, yet at east small fractions of their total cost could be eliminated in order to fix our revenue and spending dilemmas.

Initially, the closure of unneeded military installations in Europe would be a start for the Department of Defense. Several positions are generally unnecessary, and so shutting them down would benefit the country. In fact, transferring stationed troops to the border of Mexico would be enough to combat the rising drug problem between our countries, which could help eliminate casualties and save money from the largely less than stellar DEA. To be clear, no funding should be cut from the troops themselves, yet many of these bases are simply a drag on our budget clarity.

Some smaller alternatives also exist. The Department of Commerce has turned into a useless organization that makes plenty of briefs and presentations yet hardly has a beneficial impact on our nation's economy. Thus I would move to propose that Congress pass a 5-year mandate on the agency, allowing workers time to gain new employment or even start their own companies before its dissolving. In branching off of this, the departments of labor, personnel management, housing, environmental protection, and homeland security should all face similar mandates, thus cutting preliminary articles down to a more realistic budget condition.

Pushing forward, Congress must also make the hard decision of cutting parts of social security and Medicare coverage. As my colleague Ayla Samadi noted in her article Long-term Security, the government has a duty to create an umbrella factor for both those reaching retirement age and citizens of lower income levels in order to prevent a dramatic fallout from lack of support. Yet at the same time, the middle class should be transferred into 401K savings plans, which, while insecure in their own way, will draw off a huge section of the budget deficit by eliminating it largest spending target.

Finally, the government should cut the proposed healthcare plan of the Obama Administration, which promises to only add more jeopardy to our financial future, and certainly that of our children.

Difficult choices often seem like infectious diseases to the average politician; sending them running fear if one crosses their path. The truth is, we cannot continue to deceive ourselves over their dramatic issue of trust and financial security. Only a decisive move to curb spending will allow us to continue transferring prosperity to the generations to come, and it is the government's duty to do so.


John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

A Wiser Republic

The great philosopher Plato always spoke of the dangers of democracy, as he realized the unhealthy tendency for voters to choose as they so believe, regardless of hard facts or common sense. In an olden analogy, he uses the example of a ship floundering in the bowels of a tempest, led by a weak captain who represents the majority, and a crew of sailors, who show themselves to be as politicians, anxious to dismantle and then seize control. And even as this remains intensely applicable in the modern day, many seem to defend democracy as the only way, disregarding what could be a singular yet decisive change for the best in its clockwork: a prerequisite test for each registered voter. 

Of course this move brings immediate scorn and hate from members of the more socially liberal, who feel it would be disadvantageous to their average supporters, however a quick analysis of this past election campaign can prove otherwise, in states both in the east and west coast. 


To be clear, the following assessments of the Maryland, Oregon, and Washington races are not meant to be overtly partisan; on the contrary, they can be applied in 2008 to the Senate Race in Georgia, in which voters failed to elect a good man over a sleazy Republican insider. Depending on the circumstance, the disease of voter ignorance can permeate across both red and blue states, though for practical purposes it focuses on the blue in this election. 


When Bob Ehrlich announced his bid for reelection in early 2006, he should have cruised to victory, even as a conservative in the Democratic haven of Maryland. Instead, voters moved to elect Martin O'Malley due to his party affiliation, letting Ehrlich leave office with immense budget successes despite his earning of a second term. But in 2010, as the former governor launched a comeback bid, Maryland voters, clinging desperately to their Democratic leanings, would not reelect him, regardless of O'Malleys blatant failures to keep the state;s fiscal house in order. All because of Baltimore, a haven for welfare recipients and the average ignoramus when it comes to politics, the entire state was forced to loose a hope for economic recovery. 

Democrats have argued that background is important in any election, and so they propped up failure ex-governor John Kitzhaber to battle the imposing Chris Dudley, who was bulleted  as inexperienced and unprepared to lead--notwithstanding the 28 years of Democratic rule in the state which has led to a budget shortfall and 25% of the state budget meant for public sector retirement pay. True Dudley was a novice, yet he swept the entire state, only losing because of Portland's strong Democratic lean, and equal lean away from sensibility. If thirty years cannot solve one's problems, is it not time for a change?

And to the north, Washington's vote, decided predominantly by King County, went to veteran Democratic Senator Patty Murray, ignoring her categorically corrupt associations with Wall Street lobbyists and special interests in the nation's capital. Never mind that her opponent, estate agent Dino Rossi, carried most every county of the state--it is only the population center which counts. 

So are these outcomes really sensible or fair? Should each race be hinging on the largest portion of the states, which according to studies are the least educated and intellectually deficient? There's no forcible right or wrong answer, yet this should not stop the country from adopting a test for would be voters before they may pass their ballots. Nothing extreme, but a quick test on constitutional law would be enough to encourage individuals to read up on the issues before going out to vote, thus resulting in at least closer or more logical election consequences. 

Melanie Bryant

National Alliance Vice President for Education

Analysis and Progress

The tidal wave is certainly subsiding, yet within its wake is a call not to sit back in temerity, but rather to step up and challenge the issues which we so desperately need to overcome in these next two years. After four years of painful eradication at the ballot box, the Republicans have returned to Capitol Hill in full force, led by a stronger grassroots effort than ever seen before, and a mandate to deliver fundamental changes to government. As the National Alliance Foundation made clear in an earlier piece, this must be a time for the GOP to truly work and complete its promises to the public. Winning a race is one thing, yet following through on campaign promises is another entirely, and this is the test of the Republican mettle for 2011.

In almost a saddening way, the Democrats have fallen prey to the mistakes of poor judgement, and they arrive at Congress in January lacking senior giants such as Ike Skelton, Jim Oberstar, Allen Boyd, and even Rick Boucher, who could not survive the swarm of opposition in rural southern Virginia. This leaves the Democrats with less senior members, and a reminder of how governmental folly punishes the arrogant of the mob with minority status. The House is gone, solidly rocked to the other side with a sixty vote swing, though some still believe it may go as high as seventy over the next few days.

Although the Senate was easier for the Democratic Party to survive in, their proximity to defeat in a number of races should also serve as something of a message of 2012 and their electoral hopes in that great contest. In the state of Washington, upstart Dino Rossi looks likely to lose, yet only by less than 1%, a sure sign of danger in the traditionally blue state which Barack Obama cruised to victory in during 2008. Michael Bennett may fend off Ken Buck, but only by a mere point as well, putting that state's loyalty in question for the president's reelection. Obviously the firmest results for the left were in Nevada, where Harry Reid survived the coup to remove him from power, and California, where Barbara Boxer crushed challenger Carly Fiorina by more than 600,000 votes.

Possibly a larger problem for the DNC to mull over now is the simple dilemma of state gubernatorial races, which seem destined to hand bellwether states to the GOP, swapping out only a choice few solid blue provinces of California and New York with confident liberals. Ohio will now have a Republican governor, as will likely Florida and Michigan, all key states for both redistricting and the next presidential contest. Even true blue Oregon, which has not elected a Republican for decades, seems destined to fall out of the center-left's hands as Chris Dudley leads his Democratic opponent.

As if the fall of the giants was not enough, countless freshmen Democrats have been soundly routed, most notably with the case of liberal bastion and take-no-prisoners Alan Grayson, whose distasteful ads landed him a double digit silencing as Republican Daniel Webster annihilated his chances at reelection.

Refuting claims of anti-minority standing, the GOP elected a number of African Americans, most notably Allen West in Florida and Tim Scott in South Carolina. And in statewide contests, Marco Rubio pummeled independent Charlie Crist and Democrat Kendrick Meek, followed by Susana Martinez's defeating Diane Denish, adding more Hispanics to the national Republican caucus. In short, the mirage of the DNC serving as some welcoming all party was shattered as voters turned to real leadership, not talking points.

While these are all causes for celebration, they must serve as a warning to the GOP to not repeat the disaster of 1995, which was simply a smearing of President Bill Clinton. Indeed, Mitch McConnell's unwise quip that the GOP's focus is only unseating Barack Obama was hardly prudent, and should disqualify him from the leadership post. This Congress needs to represent action, not political gains. Republicans have a duty to build reasons for their taking of the executive branch in 2012, not simply a platform. That is the test of leadership for the GOP for the next two years in the lower house majority.


Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy